League of Our Own: Creating a Model United Nations Scrimmage Conference

Abstract

Model United Nations (MUN) provides a great forum for students to learn about global issues and political processes, while also practicing communication and negotiation skills that will serve them well for a lifetime. Intercollegiate MUN conferences can be problematic, however, in terms of logistics, budgets, and student participation. In order to improve the educational utility of the MUN experience while minimizing some of the drawbacks that accompany lengthy travel, the authors created an intercollegiate scrimmage league. This paper details our experience with MUN, examining the strengths and weaknesses of traditional competitions, our reasons for starting a scrimmage league, and the particulars of putting together such a league. We then evaluate both the challenges and successes of this approach and discuss our future plans. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate more discussion of useful techniques for improving the MUN experience.

Keywords:

• conferences
• international
• Model United Nations
• simulations

Notes

Note: Numbers in brackets refer to the number of respondants who chose that response as one of three benefits. Numbers in parentheses refer to the percentage of students choosing this response.

This was an important theme in a roundtable on MUN during the 2007 International Studies Association conference in Chicago.

This may be a matter of perception. Sometimes a well-prepared delegate representing a smaller country can take a leading role. That student, however, has extra hurdles to overcome. Less experienced students are not as likely to clear those hurdles and often let the perception that they can be safely ignored turn into an excuse for their lack of activity. Also, some conferences have a lottery-like process for assigning countries, but this typically requires registration during the preceding academic year.

Each judge ranks each delegation on the “2” to “5” scale, based on criteria listed below. The judges' scores for each delegation are averaged and rounded up or down (e.g., an average of “4.49” and below would be rounded down to “4” and an average of “4.50” and above would be rounded up to “5”). Those receiving a score of “5” or “4” are given individual awards. In addition, judges are encouraged to make written comments about delegates' performance. All judges' scores and comments are collected for each delegation, so each delegation is given an envelope with direct feedback.

In the event of a tie, the winner is determined on the basis of adding more delegation scores until one team achieves a higher cumulative score. For example, if the top three delegations from College A and College B result in a tie, scoring would then be based on the top four delegations, then the top five delegations, and so on until one team achieves a higher score. If this method does not break the tie, a winner is determined via secret ballot by the panel of judges. Rarely has this method had to go beyond the fourth delegation. If a smaller team were to run out of delegations before breaking the tie, we would move to the panel of judges at that point.